Ireland open to single cap

Senior sports writer for The Age

Andrew Ireland says he has not reached the stage of saying the "single cap" should be introduced, but it should be discussed as part of the equalisation debate and considered. Photo: Slattery Media

Sydney chief executive Andrew Ireland says the concept of a single cap on football spending - in which clubs could pay whatever percentage they wished to players - is worth considering.

Ireland, whose club is trying to retain the contentious cost-of-living allowance in the face of opposition from rivals, said there was ''some logic'' in the argument put by the AFL Players' Association, which called for a single cap on football spending that would allow clubs to decide how they spend their money - on players, coaches, conditioning, medical and so forth.

Ireland said he had not reached the stage of saying the ''single cap'' should be introduced, but it should be discussed as part of the equalisation debate and considered.

Other clubs have suggested that the concept is unlikely to be supported by the AFL.

Advertisement

The players association have raised the concept with the AFL hierarchy - which appears likely to introduce a cap on football spending, with a luxury tax paid by clubs that exceed the cap and the money pooled and re-distributed.

''This is more of a personal view. It's not something we've discussed at any great length here,'' said Ireland. ''I don't think I'm at the stage of saying it should be (introduced), I think it (the single cap) should be considered.

''I think in terms of the equalisation discussions we're having, there is some merit in discussing it.

''I think there's some logic in what the players' association put forward, in terms of the dynamics and cost pressures in the football industry would be balanced somewhat if all the football department were in same dynamic if you like.''

Ireland had previously mentioned the possibility of a single cap - as one of a range of possibilities - when quizzed about how the Swans could deal with Lance Franklin's unusually large, $10.2 million contract, without knowing the rules in the future.

One of the players' arguments is that the costs have escalated dramatically in non-player spending in football departments, with the player share of the football spending decreasing steadily in terms of percentage (it is increasing outright, but the other costs are rising much faster).

Another argument is that the massive increase in spending on sports science and conditioning, for instance - such as altitude and hot-weather training camps overseas - has occurred because rich clubs are restricted in what they can spend on players and can only seek an edge in other areas.

Ireland said while there was a case for balancing the spending towards players, there also been some ''catch-up'' for medical staff in particular and others who had worked for a relative pittance when the players had already turned professional.

''The other thing I do say is there was a degree of catch-up . . . we had a situation where the players had turned professionals and we had people like doctors being expected to turn up because they were old friends of the club and get paid ridiculously low amounts and their practice suffer . . .''

Melbourne chief executive Peter Jackson said he believed there should be greater focus on the ''revenue'' side of the equalisation measures - and the need for smaller clubs to have the capacity to make money - rather than just ''caps'' on spending.